Thursday, March 08, 2007

Bishops to remain in ‘all-elected’ Lords

As the rape of the Constitution continues apace, 800 years of history was swept aside last night as the Commons voted for an all-elected House of Lords, or Senate, or ‘Reformed Chamber’, or whatever they are going to call it.

But most of the media has got the reform wrong. The second chamber is not to be 100% elected, but a 'hybrid' of elected and appointed peers. Anglican bishops and archbishops are to keep seats, not least because Cranmer doesn’t think they’d win many votes, and their eradication would end the privileged status of the Established Church. Other reforms include:

Reduce size of House from 746 to 540 membersEnd hereditary and life peerages over timeElected peers to be voted in at same time as Euro electionsMaximum time in office of 15 years for elected and appointed peersAppointees a mixture of party politicians and non-party figuresLords may be renamed - possibly 'The Reformed Chamber'

According to the BBC, some form of Proportional Representation is to be used to elect their Lordships, or the Senators, or the Reformists (Cranmer rather likes the sound of this one…), or whatever they are to be called. There would be ‘partially open lists’ which will ‘represent the "diversity" of UK society’. So 26 bishops will be sitting with Abu Hamza and a few of his ilk. Presumably, the new house is to be made up of a proportion of women, Asian, gay, and disabled candidates, so one-legged lesbian Muslims will be fast-tracked.

But Cranmer exhorts all of those who are appalled by these proposals not to panic. The vote may have been won in the Commons, but their Lordships have to agree to their own demise, and this is highly unlikely. And if the Parliament Act is deployed, the reform will forever have a questionable legal foundation.

If, however, by some turn of fate, this appalling government succeeds in wiping away centuries of tradition and heritage, His Grace will announce is candidature for membership of the ‘Reformed Chamber’, and a counter-reformation shall begin…

Your GraceI feel that this reform of the second chamber is long overdue.Personally, I would prefer that all, excepting spiritual, seats were elected but this is a start toward an upper house that is more representative of modern Britain; one legged muslim lesbians included.

I've been watching the evolution of the House of Lords from over here. While I'm not in favor of hereditary government (though it's fine with me if others want to have it), I think that the current model of appointments emasculates the House of Lords and further turns the government into an unchecked winner-take-all system.

Does your grace think this proposal (assuming the bishops keep their seats) would be worse than the post-1998 system? What if the "Reformed Chamber" or whatever actually had some of its old constitutional powers restored and ceased to be a rubber stamp?

Is a return of powers to be part of the deal, or is it just supposed to turn into an *elected* debating society?

The result is undoubtedly worse, which is precisely why many MPs voted for it. It is likely to be unattainable, if only because a 'revising chamber' with a democratic mandate will not only be able to ask by what right its revisions aren't acceptable to the Commons, it will push for more powers.

Mr Voyager,

This may not be a good idea. Plato was of the opinion that issues of constitutional complexity should not be decided by 'the masses'. Democracy is one thing, but forging a constitution 'by popular consent' is likely to yield nothing but a BBC-approved document...

Yes I think I might join you there your Grace . You will no doubt be mortified to learn that I am always being asked to run for this and that , which I attribute to my own manifest qualities and, more pertinently, to the want of suitable material ,given the great proliferation of elected positions . What with regional assemblies , the London assembly European what not and now another trenche of positions to fill , I feel I may simply have to take the money, and do as I am told ,.

I couldn1`t give a fig , myself , about centuries of tradition, and I have not heard any good defence of the hereditary principle except on some bizarre aesthetic grounds , as if the Peers complimented the fine late Victorian interiors and Gothic masonry. What I do care about is a further erosion of the democratic ability of the people to un-elect a government . A mental trip around Africa and Asia will suffice to demonstrate how little the presence of voting right s has to do with democracy . It is a far more culturally specific phenomenon and most votes have been introduced with the express intention of denying choice to the electorate. MEPs are I suppose we the end point of this process of managerial slither.

The probability of PR, the professional bureaucrats holy grail, is a horrifying one . Protestations by silly Iain Dale and others , that it will not dilute the already moribund executive are as stupid as they sound . Of course it will ! They will have succeeded in removing decisions from the voter to the minor parties and operators of political groups.The most important question is a democracy is ,” who do I vote against if I do not like what I see”, and that question , to the delight of the preening Westminster elite ,will become opaque to the point of disappearing entirely .

There is a very good case for reducing the size of the House of Lords and I would have like to see the modus operandii of a modern private company where expertise is called upon from outside by core of decision makers .,To some extent this has been the natural development and it could be codified in a structured and explicit way to appear modern..if you must . The core decision makers might be chosen in any number of ways. Given the want of good people mentioned above many of them would be the same people ….. but the possibility of PR is a disaster.

You Grace has two issues somewhat uncomfortably manacled together. The obfuscating of democracy with a somewhat vague , affection for the old ways simply because they are old . That is not the way to defend the existing structure .That the ermined eminences cannot be likened to rare rainforest tribesmen who are the repository of forgotten wisdom is a most desperate special pleading and will find no support. None ."What works" , as a reforming and examining second chamber and what will least damage our crippled democracy must be the focus . All in all I would leave it the way it is along purely pragmatic lines with some minor improvements suggested above.

The House of Lords existed as the superior house because the Lords were landowners and loyal to the Monarch at the apex.

This situation became absurd in an industrial age when land-owning became secondary to mill-owning and the Beerage obstructed the 1906 Liberal Govt after the Conservatives finally lost a General Election in 1906.

It took the Liberals TWO elections in 1910 to convince the King to flood the HoL with peers which had it occurred would certainly have scuppered Lloyd George and Maundy Gregory from retailing what was available wholesale.

The fact is the Parliament Acts are an affront in a modern democracy, and the ability of the Commons to legislate without regard to public opinion has become dangerous since the large majorities post-1979 made it easy to guarantee legislation.

If we repeal the Parliament Act the Budget will no longer be a Confidence Motion and we might get taxation and spending under more control. Currently the H o L cannot block a mney Bill nor initiate one

It is a tremendous shame indeed that the great House of Lords is going to be ripped to bits. A great shame indeed.

But, you talk of the likelihood of it happening being minimal. You are quite right that the use of the Parliament Act would throw questions onto the legitimacy of the process. But of course, all it would take to get round this is for the Labour and Conservative Parties to put in their election manifestoes that they will bring in 100% elected House of Lords, or whatever, and the Lords would find themself practically powerless, due to the Salisbury Convention. If the Lords voted against it then, the side of legality would be with the Commons. That is why I am much more sceptical that the great Upper Chamber will remain intact.

Steven BainbridgeA View from the Righthttp://stevenbainbridge.blogspot.com/

This dreadful Government under which we currently languish knoweth not what it does. In tinkering further with the ancient House of Lords, that bastion of all that has ever been good and true, New Labour propel us further into the mists of ill-thought out constitutional reform knowing not where this will end. We are like a rudderless ship, drifting towards rocks.

The shocking fact is that no one with any political clout is even attempting to save us from shipwreck on these rocks. What is the Tory party doing? Nothing, indeed worse than nothing with their appalling support for a partly elected House of Lords. They should be seeking a complete restoration of the old House of Lords: hereditaries, spirituals, and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary only. No one else.

If I may close by begging to make one slight correction to Your Grace's post: it is rather alarmist to state that the proposals will "End hereditary and life peerages over time". I think that our Noble Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, etc would be a little worried to learn that their peerages will be ended over time. I take it that you rather mean that their representation in the Lords will end over time. Their titles, on the other hand, will remain till the last trump calls us all into the equality of the Kingdom of Heaven, where, with Your Grace gone before us, we shall enjoy blessed rest from New Labour's follies.

--They should be seeking a complete restoration of the old House of Lords: hereditaries, spirituals, and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary only. No one else.--

Hear, hear. Upon having done that, though, I'd work to entrench matters further by granting the House of Lords power to refuse admittance to any jobbing young Strephon who it appears is appointed to swamp it.

Voyager (some comments back):It did NOT take two General Elections to persuade the King in 1910: the King died in between, and as the first election had produced a hung parliament, the Govmt argued that a new monarch required a new parliament and seized their chance of a better outcome.

If the Parliament Acts are repealed, Budgets will still be matters of confidence. It could also be argued that the money bill provision codified the pre-existing convention (of several centuries' standing) that the Lords would not veto tax measures (part of the problem with the American Revolution was that the peers refused to block the Stamp Act because it was a tax matter, for example). So you could argue that it was the Lords themselves who were breaking the constitution.

Your suggestion of a referendum was actually aired in 1910 by the jurist Dicey who argued that instead of an automatic override, a Lords rejection shoud trigger a plebiscite.

The Parliament Acts are no more an affront to democracy than, say, a written constitution would be or a Human Rights Act (sic) is. I don't particularly like what's been done to the Upper House but I have to concede that legally Parliament is competent to regulate its own membership. What I don't think it can do is (a) abolish one of the Houses; or (b) abolish itself. (It can however merge itself with another parliament cf Union with Scotland, Ireland and demerge part of itself cf independence of Ireland.)

For the government, the independence of the Lords in the House of Lords is an obstacle. The aim of the reform seems to be to obtain more control over the second chamber by making the "Lords" dependent on elections and the influence of mass media.

Billy,

You claim that the reform would result in being "more representative of modern Britain". That's only correct if less separation of power is considered modern in Britain. Usually, less separation of power is the unhampered road to dictatorship. That's were all democracies have ended in the past. The British model has a long history of preventing such an outcome. Why changing what has proven successful in the past?

Michael Canaris said...Nor does Judaism or Christianity...but I see jelly bean is only familiar with Mohammedanism

Do pardon me for my unacceptable mistake, but I was told by a fellow Christian that the bible only condemns the homosexual act, not homosexuality. Are you Christians having trouble making your minds up?

I must admit, Christianity is no doubt a religion full of 'mysteries' and unanswerable questions.

How droll, such a term did not exist before circa 1858. There was no such affliction as "homosexuality" there was only the actus reus and no such mens rea

The Bible could not possibly anticipate some German designating a mental affliction as such any more than it could discuss bi-polar depression or borderline personality disorder.......it was concerned with acts because there was no such state as being homosexual, only a state of engaging in a forbidden act.

Which part of this modern dualism did Mohammed find not to his refined taste ?

are the references you require Miss Jelly Bean - you will find 1886 is the date which we Christians regard as 1886 years AFTER the birth of Jesus Christ and well over 4000 years AFTER much of the old Testament Scrolls were transcribed..........what do you anticipate will be the term used in 2407 to describe men who have sex with men (MSM) ?

Michael Canaris is a relatively new communicant to His Grace's august blog of intelligence and erudition. His full name is apparently Michael Thomas Augustine Canaris. A prelimary survey of his own blog indicates manifest qualification and suitability to make contributions here, though one may not reciprocate unless one registers with his service provider.

Miss Jelly Bean,

His Grace has suspected for some time that you are both student-like and Mohammedan, despite your assertions that you are aged (or 'wrinkled' as you put it), and that your 'fellow Christian' has advised you (incorrectly) on a point of ethics.

After many months of reading your intermittent posts of utterly insignificant substance, His Grace and assembled communicants still await evidence of your intelligence and erudition. Please gain at least an A-level before posting anything further. Silence is preferable to shallow inanity.

one may not reciprocate unless one registers with his service provider

I can see he is a blogger who brooks no contradictory postings, however he did not elaborate on whether his inscription was affixed to the attractive drunk or her unattractive fellow-drunk....a lapse of attention to detail no doubt a result of being inveigled into fast-food outlets...........no doubt he was undercover there on some Counter-Intelligence mission

Indeed I am student-like. But arn't we all. No single human can make the affirmation of possessing absolute knowlege, in which case Cranmer, even you are a student. I feel no shame about possessing a level of knowlege that is inadequate to your standards. Your judgement of my character is of no significance to me. Silence is no doubt better than shallow inanity, and it is something I tend to adopt quite frequently since I am myself a seeker and have much to learn. Why must you judge a person's level of intelligence on the basis of their academic achievements? Knowlege is of many kinds. For some, knowledge of the divine and celestial has far greater meaning and implications than worldly knowledge.

At last you have contributed more than a superficial sentence and revealed something of yourself. His Grace does not judge your intellect; he merely seeks evidence of it. You state: 'For some, knowledge of the divine and celestial has far greater meaning and implications than worldly knowledge.'

Indeed, indeed, this is most certainly true, and we look forward very much to hearing of your knowledge of the 'divine and celestial'.

"we look forward very much to hearing of your knowledge of the 'divine and celestial'."

Considering the claim of theologicians that the 'divine and celestial' is not based on knowledge but on belief, Miss Jelly Bean might have the same difficulties as His Grace to provide us with the non-existent knowledge of the 'divine and celestial'.

Admittingly, I have trouble in understanding why Mrs. Jelly Bean should not express her views on His Grace's erudite, intelligent and in my experience tolerant blog. Not all and every comment posted here meets His Grace's strict requirements for outmost erudition and intelligence. For reasons of politeness, I shall only mention some of my own comments as a case in point.

Colin said...Considering the claim of theologicians that the 'divine and celestial' is not based on knowledge but on belief, Miss Jelly Bean might have the same difficulties as His Grace to provide us with the non-existent knowledge of the 'divine and celestial'.

Knowledge in my reasoning, does not always have to be logisitically apparent. Belief can also be viewed as a form of unproven knowledge, which is subconsiously existant.

Cranmer said...And if Miss Jelly Bean is indeed a Mohammedan, we shall no doubt be subjected to that infallible and unquestionable knowledge in any case.

I see that you mock me Cranmer, but I take no offense and refuse to retaliate upon the questioning of my religious beleifs.

I thank Your Grace for reference to Michael Polanyi - though I think his brother Karl interesting too. This is indeed worthy of reflection - "We know more than we can tell." is indeed a profound observation....and the attempts to objectify knowledge have led some persons to consider it a product rather than a process

Being unaware of the importance of this difference for you, I am wondering whether you are planning to change this unpleasant status in the foreseeable future with Allah's and your family's consent. Bless you, Miss Jelly Bean.

Actually, my hope was that His Grace would be able to help Miss Jelly Bean with her problems since I don't have any credentials as pastor. But I understand that His Grace's parish and theological seminars require all his energies.

Colin said...Mohammed knew that Allah demands reproduction of his faithfuls. Hence, he obediently married several wifes.

Indeed. You are quite right. I guess the same could also be said for those men who commit adultry several times, leave lots of illegitimate children lying around and eventually die of liver disease due to their incontrollable addiction to alcohol. They are also fulfilling God's commandment in their own twisted way.P.S. I realise that reproduction is a necassary requirement for life, for which I am an important asset. I shall bear this in mind for the future.

It was just a joke which might be inappropriate for a young lady from the Islamic world. Cranmer's neocounter indicates that you seem to access this blog from Quatar. Welcome !! And please accept my apologies for the joke.

"I guess the same could also be said for those men who commit adultry several times, leave lots of illegitimate children" Yes, you are absolutely right.

"and eventually die of liver disease due to their incontrollable addiction to alcohol." Yes, alcoholism is a big problem. However, alcoholics suffer mostly from impotence. Hence, the first part of your sentence is unrelated to the second.

"reproduction is a necessary requirement for life, for which I am an important asset." No doubt about that.

"I'm a Miss Jelly Bean, not a Mrs Jelly Bean. (there's a BIG difference!)" Often, women in the Western world consider the title of Miss as an insult and demand to be called Mrs. I didn't know that you don't live in the UK. Welcome on this blog, hopefully you will write some interesting contributions.

"Often, women in the Western world consider the title of Miss as an insult and demand to be called Mrs.

Why would you want to be referred to as a Mrs when you're not even married? Western women are indeed quite strange."

It has something to do with feminism, i.e. women demand the same rights as men. Since there doesn't exist the equivalent of Miss for an unmarried man, they consider this word as a diminution of their status and an infringement of their equal rights.

"So according to Cranmer's neocounter, I'm from Quatar (am I really?)" I don't know and actually I don't care where people are from as long as they are interesting. Naturally, someone from the Arab world is an unusual visitor and therefore a most interesting person on this blog.

"Thank you for welcoming me on this blog (although I thought Cranmer usually did that)."

As you already observed, he is somewhat hesistant to welcome visitors from the Islamic world because they soon start to proselytise and try to convince everybody that their religion is superior etc. Furthermore, as you know, Islamic faitfuls have blown up buses, the underground and are openly threatening to conquer the United Kingdom. Not suprisingly, the native population doesn't welcome to be conquered similar to the Arabs who don't welcome foreign soldiers in their lands. Such reactions are understandable and human. I am sure that Cranmer will be happy with your visits and comments as long as you don't try to convert him to your religion.

I am not sure and I don't care whether you are a Muslim or not. However, if you were a Western woman you certainly wouldn't write "Western women are indeed quite strange." Being an atheist I don't care about religions. I only care about freedom of individuals from the dictorship of others.

"Secondly, I doubt that Cranmer would be influenced by my words and therefore convert to Islam (if indeed I try to convert him)." You are absolutely right. Nobody would even be able to convert him to Catholicism.

"Some people don't find it a necessity to follow the conventional way of living life, regardless of them being born in a Western country."

That's correct but so what?

"P.S. It may be that converting a Protestant to Islam, is easier than converting him to Catholicism."

Even worse, maybe this blog is run by an islamist with the purpose to obtain the IP addresses of opponents. And Miss Jelly Bean is working for Al Jazeera in Qatar reporting about islamophobia in the UK. Alternatively, you might be a nun in a Roman monastery trying to spy on His Grace's anti-catholic activities.

I start feeling bored by a meaningless conversation. It was sure nice talking to you. Good bye.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)